Chris Hedges: "Don't Pity the Democrats"

[Rakhmetov]

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/do_not_pity_the_democrats_20100913/

[RadioRaheem84]

Chris Hedges is growing ever so radical lately. Great comrade to have. Maybe he might slip into Marxism soon?

[TwoSevensClash]

I wasn't going to pity them:thumbup1:

[Rakhmetov]

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20081229_why_i_am_a_socialist/

[RadioRaheem84]

Excellent!

[enrici]

Yeah, I remember when I was a democrat. I grew up in a Repuglican household, so it was part of my teenage rebellion phase. Then I realised that they were full of shit just like the "right" wing. I should read moer of this Hedges dude, because he seems like he's someone who gets it.

[NGNM85]

For all his bluster and hyperbole Hedges' piece comes up noticeably short in terms of real, practical ideas. I wasn't particularly impressed.

[Barry Lyndon]

For all his bluster and hyperbole Hedges' piece comes up noticeably short in terms of real, practical ideas. I wasn't particularly impressed.

You need to stop projecting, NGNM85.

[NGNM85]

You need to stop projecting, NGNM85.

You need to grow up.

[~Spectre]

For all his bluster and hyperbole Hedges' piece comes up noticeably short in terms of real, practical ideas. I wasn't particularly impressed.


I've met the guy, and he's a good ally for working people. What exactly were your issues with the article?

[RadioRaheem84]

He's a religious lefty, not an atheist liberal, hence why NGN doesn't like him.
:tt2:

[NGNM85]

I've met the guy, and he's a good ally for working people. What exactly were your issues with the article?

Don't get me wrong, I like some of what Hedges writes very much, however, some of it is complete bullshit. I like his principled stand on the death penalty, what he says about the American Evangelical right, a lot of what he says about human rights, and corporate corruption. I'm less enthusiastic about his religiosity and critcism of atheism and atheists, his views on pornography, and his belief that human progress is nothing more than a myth, just off the top of my head. There are hits and misses and I think this piece largely fits into the latter category.

Where to begin? As I said, it's extremely shrill and emotional, with very little valuable, practical content. Some of the few suggestions he does make are highly dubious; completely dropping out of the political system, and boycotting....everything, it seems, for starters. Then there's his complete dismissal of the Tea Party 'movement' and what they represent (Real, working-class rage that has been co-opted by a right-wing corporate agenda because the Left screwed up, that includes everybody here.) As part of his attitude he completely dismisses any concern of a takeover of congress or the White House by the Republican party, which, I think, is both irresponsible and stupid, especially in it's present incarnation. There's his condemnation of the Obama administration for not fulfilling it's promise, which is absurd because recriminations like this could only make sense to someone who actually bought into the hype in the first place. There are other things, as well. This is not one of his better pieces.

[NGNM85]

He's a religious lefty, not an atheist liberal, hence why NGN doesn't like him.
:tt2:

You stun we with your rapier-like wit.

[~Spectre]

Don't get me wrong, I like some of what Hedges writes very much, however, some of it is complete bullshit. I like his principled stand on the death penalty, what he says about the American Evangelical right, a lot of what he says about human rights, and corporate corruption. I'm less enthusiastic about his religiosity and critcism of atheism and atheists, his views on pornography, and his belief that human progress is nothing more than a myth, just off the top of my head. There are hits and misses and I think this piece largely fits into the latter category.

Where to begin? As I said, it's extremely shrill and emotional, with very little valuable, practical content. Some of the few suggestions he does make are highly dubious; completely dropping out of the political system, and boycotting....everything, it seems, for starters. Then there's his complete dismissal of the Tea Party 'movement' and what they represent (Real, working-class rage that has been co-opted by a right-wing corporate agenda because the Left screwed up, that includes everybody here.) As part of his attitude he completely dismisses any concern of a takeover of congress or the White House by the Republican party, which, I think, is both irresponsible and stupid, especially in it's present incarnation. There's his condemnation of the Obama administration for not fulfilling it's promise, which is absurd because recriminations like this could only make sense to someone who actually bought into the hype in the first place. There are other things, as well. This is not one of his better pieces.


You're misunderstanding Chomsky, re: the bolded.

The tea-party movement wasn't "co-opted" by anything. The Tea-party movement was always organized by, funded by, promoted by, and represented by, republican operatives.

Economically, the tea partiers are also better off than most of Americans, and the working class too.


Chomsky's point, applies to why a lot of Americans are more and more reactionary. Your criticism of Hedges' here is invalid.



Re: The 2nd bolded,

Your criticism of Hedges here doesn't make much sense in context. The majority of Americans do buy that hype. His article wasn't addressed to you nor to revleft.

It also seems to be a bit unfair to jump on him for not being a loony Chris Hitchens anti-theist.

[NGNM85]

You're misunderstanding Chomsky, re: the bolded.

I was not quoting or paraphrasing him.


The tea-party movement wasn't "co-opted" by anything.

I didn't say that.

The Tea-party movement was always organized by, funded by, promoted by, and represented by, republican operatives.


Economically, the tea partiers are also better off than most of Americans, and the working class too.

By statistical averages, and that doesn't include the substantial amount of sympathizers or 'inactive' persons who identify with it, or believe in it.

There are a lot of angry people out there who have very good reasons to be angry. That rage has been coopted into the fake populism of Glen Beck and co. The Left is losing the war of ideas. This is only possible because the Left was unable, or unwilling to provide a meaningful alternative people could connect with. Sure, they had millions in corporate funding, not to mention, essentially, their own 24-hour media apparatus, but that's irrelevent. (Fox) When are the odds ever in our favor? It's always an uphill struggle.


Chomsky's point, applies to why a lot of Americans are more and more reactionary. Your criticism of Hedges' here is invalid.

I was not quoting or paraphrasing him.


Re: The 2nd bolded,

Your criticism of Hedges here doesn't make much sense in context. The majority of Americans do buy that hype. His article wasn't addressed to you nor to revleft.

It doesn't make sense for him to take that position, however, unless he bought into the hype.


It also seems to be a bit unfair to jump on him for not being a loony Chris Hitchens anti-theist.

I'm going to try and unpack that. First of all, Atheism is a lot bigger than Chris Hitchens. Second, that's not what I was saying.

First of all, Hedges, like all religious people, is irrational in his religiosity. Second, he goes way beyond that, he attacks all Atheists, not just the most visible ones. ( Although he's misquoted a piece by Sam Harris so often I can only assume it's deliberate falsification.) At best, I can only say he perhaps has a horrible misunderstanding of Atheism. There's also his completely bogus belief that human progress is a myth, and his puritanical attitude towards pornography. So, you can say I 'just don't like him because he criticizes Chris Hitchens,' but that isn't true, and that's not what I said.

[~Spectre]

I was not quoting or paraphrasing him.


Yes you were. You ripped that argument from several talks that he's given, only you misundesrtood it. It's your usual M.O.



I didn't say that.



You said that they represent co-opted working class rage. Since you're no longer defending the movement itself (you initially criticized him for dismissing the movement), we then have to get into the composition of the tea party folk. They are well off has been said.


As was posted several months ago, our side is more popular than the tea party in this country. It's just that one has corporate backing.

Your argument isn't based on reality at all at this point.



By statistical averages, and that doesn't include the substantial amount of sympathizers or 'inactive' persons who identify with it, or believe in it.


Socialist and socialist sympathizers outnumber them.




There are a lot of angry people out there who have very good reasons to be angry. That rage has been coopted into the fake populism of Glen Beck and co. The Left is losing the war of ideas. This is only possible because the Left was unable, or unwilling to provide a meaningful alternative people could connect with. Sure, they had millions in corporate funding, not to mention, essentially, their own 24-hour media apparatus, but that's irrelevent. (Fox) When are the odds ever in our favor? It's always an uphill struggle.


Perhaps you might want to rephrase this weird tangent (that you also ripped from Chomsky) now that you've been shown some of the relevant facts.






It doesn't make sense for him to take that position, however, unless he bought into the hype.


He's writing articles for general consumption. Your criticism here again makes no sense.



I'm going to try and unpack that. First of all, Atheism is a lot bigger than Chris Hitchens. Second, that's not what I was saying.

First of all, Hedges, like all religious people, is irrational in his religiosity. Second, he goes way beyond that, he attacks all Atheists, not just the most visible ones. ( Although he's misquoted a piece by Sam Harris so often I can only assume it's deliberate falsification.) At best, I can only say he perhaps has a horrible misunderstanding of Atheism. There's also his completely bogus belief that human progress is a myth, and his puritanical attitude towards pornography. So, you can say I 'just don't like him because he criticizes Chris Hitchens,' but that isn't true, and that's not what I said.


His attacks seem to be on New Atheists no? I.e. the anti-theist lunatics that try to seriously argue that major conflicts stem from religion, and not material conditions.

Either way, it seems silly to hold that against him on non-related issues. Much more damning to overall credibility would be some of the statements made by your guys Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins.

[Salyut]

Excellent!

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/this_country_needs_a_few_good_communists_20100531/


As part of his attitude he completely dismisses any concern of a takeover of congress or the White House by the Republican party, which, I think, is both irresponsible and stupid, especially in it's present incarnation.

what

Have you read his work? Christian Fascists/Empire of Illusion had plenty to do with this.

[Barry Lyndon]

I'm going to try and unpack that. First of all, Atheism is a lot bigger than Chris Hitchens. Second, that's not what I was saying.

First of all, Hedges, like all religious people, is irrational in his religiosity. Second, he goes way beyond that, he attacks all Atheists, not just the most visible ones. ( Although he's misquoted a piece by Sam Harris so often I can only assume it's deliberate falsification.) At best, I can only say he perhaps has a horrible misunderstanding of Atheism. There's also his completely bogus belief that human progress is a myth, and his puritanical attitude towards pornography. So, you can say I 'just don't like him because he criticizes Chris Hitchens,' but that isn't true, and that's not what I said.

I live on Mars, where I snort coke off the ass of unicorns.

By your reasoning, its all true, because its in italics!

[RadioRaheem84]

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...ists_20100531/

Joy! Hedges is a good ally!

[NGNM85]

Yes you were.

No, I wasn’t. This also isn't the first time I've said it. There's nothing else I can do to convince you, but this is not so. I do not deny that I’m an admirer of his and I’m definitely influenced by his work, I’ll also gladly point out when I’m quoting, paraphrasing, or otherwise referencing him, when I am, in fact, doing so. There’s no reason it should be a secret.


You ripped that argument from several talks that he's given,

Again, this is not so.


only you misundesrtood it. It's your usual M.O.

I’d like to see your evidence, please.


You said that they represent co-opted working class rage.

Yes, I said that.


Since you're no longer defending the movement itself (you initially criticized him for dismissing the movement), we then have to get into the composition of the tea party folk. They are well off has been said.


As was posted several months ago, our side is more popular than the tea party in this country. It's just that one has corporate backing.

Your argument isn't based on reality at all at this point.

Socialist and socialist sympathizers outnumber them.

That last part is at least possible, of course. How you're defining 'socialist sympathizers' is sort of crucial. (That’s incredibly vague.) I think you’re thinking of a Rasmussen poll I cited a few days ago where 47% of respondents favored Socialism over Capitalism. However, as I pointed out, a poll done not very long before it found 70% in favor of ‘the free market.’ Part of the problem is the structure of the questions and the comprehension of the essential concepts by the respondents. I think a majority of Americans would embrace socialism if they had a clear understanding of socialism, and socialist thought. However, most the public does not. Therefore, socialists are obligated to communicate that, I mean, if we’re to actually achieve anything.


Perhaps you might want to rephrase this weird tangent (that you also ripped from Chomsky)

No, I didn't, and no, I don’t.


now that you've been shown some of the relevant facts.

You didn't cite any facts.



He's writing articles for general consumption. Your criticism here again makes no sense.

I see this as a lot of speculation on his internal state. I don’t see why he couldn’t just explain it, then. Either this is revelation to him, or he’s just being melodramatic. This was just one problem I had with the piece.



His attacks seem to be on New Atheists no?

Again, he is against atheism, so, by default, he criticizes everyone who is an atheist, he just spends more time on the more visible ones. He also sometimes horribly distorts their views, like the Harris quote.


I.e. the anti-theist lunatics that try to seriously argue that major conflicts stem from religion, and not material conditions.

I’d argue with that if I thought you were even remotely interested in doing so. Suffice to say that is a dubious assertion, at best.


Either way, it seems silly to hold that against him on non-related issues. Much more damning to overall credibility would be some of the statements made by your guys Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins.

I was simply explaining that I don't hate or love everything he says, some of it is good, some of it is bad, just like everyone else. Like I said, nobody bats 1,000.

‘Your guys?’ That’s the second time you’ve done that. What about ‘your guy’ Marx? Do you have ownership of Marx? Do you personally endorse everything that every self-proclaimed Marxist says? This is infantile.

Second, you cannot simply conflate Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins as if they are the same person. They have significant philosophical differences. If you have some intelligent criticism (I won’t hold my breath.) of atheism, or of something any one of these men have published, there are other threads for that, and you are free to contribute to them.
This thread is about a piece that Chris Hedges wrote on TruthDig.

[Barry Lyndon]

That last part is at least possible, of course. How you're defining 'socialist sympathizers' is sort of crucial. (That’s incredibly vague.) I think you’re thinking of a Rasmussen poll I cited a few days ago where 47% of respondents favored Socialism over Capitalism. However, as I pointed out, a poll done not very long before it found 70% in favor of ‘the free market.’ Part of the problem is the structure of the questions and the comprehension of the essential concepts by the respondents. I think a majority of Americans would embrace socialism if they had a clear understanding of socialism, and socialist thought. However, most the public does not. Therefore, socialists are obligated to communicate that, I mean, if we’re to actually achieve anything.

Someday, I hope you will understand what socialism is too.

[NGNM85]

what


Have you read his work? Christian Fascists/Empire of Illusion had plenty to do with this.

I’ve skimmed “Christian Fascists”, and I saw him promoting the book at a talk or in an interview, or something. I have not read “Empire of Illusion.”

I was referring specifically to the article that’s supposed to be the topic, where he says;

“Do not fear Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin. Do not fear the tea party movement, the birthers, the legions of conspiracy theorists or the militias. …Investing emotional and intellectual energy in electoral politics is a waste of time. …“Better Barack Obama than Sarah Palin,” we will be told. Better the sane technocrats like Larry Summers than half-wits like John Bolton. But this time we must resist.”

That’s what I was talking about.


I live on Mars, where I snort coke off the ass of unicorns.


By your reasoning, its all true, because its in italics!

That, and because it’s in the article.

[RadioRaheem84]

NGN, how could you possibly think that Hedges is weak in his social criticism vs. the tripe you post all day from Harris and Hitchens?

Hedges is not an atheist, but he does have criticism about it and his scorn is saved for the anti-theists whom are the most vocal and his critique of their arrogant style is rather relevant, especially in this day and age.

You scoff at material conditions being the main source of social ills, insist it's mainly religion, quote Harris and Hitchens as if they were these geniuses, downplay Marx as if he has no relevance today, and post sometimes like a commentator on the Huffington Post website (citing Rasmussen Polls. etc.) You define leftism as if it was this set of vague idealist beliefs.

Socialists are communicating their message. It's not like we need a good publicist or something. We're effectively marginalized from the public eye for a reason.

[RadioRaheem84]

“Do not fear Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin. Do not fear the tea party movement, the birthers, the legions of conspiracy theorists or the militias. …Investing emotional and intellectual energy in electoral politics is a waste of time. …“Better Barack Obama than Sarah Palin,” we will be told. Better the sane technocrats like Larry Summers than half-wits like John Bolton. But this time we must resist.”

What is wrong with this, NGN? Hedges is right.

[Barry Lyndon]

What is wrong with this, NGN? Hedges is right.

It makes NGN uncomfortable because he is the national chair of the 'Anarchists for Obama' campaign-which for some reason has never gotten off the ground.

[RadioRaheem84]

NGN, even if you do not agree with Hedges on religion, that is besides the point. His social criticisms are not only spot on but really refreshing for someone in the mainstream. He is more of an ally to the working class than Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins combined.

How can you not see this? Or are you really stuck on this notion that religion is the key obstacle to progress that must be stopped?

[NGNM85]

NGN, how could you possibly think that Hedges is weak in his social criticism vs. the tripe you post all day from Harris and Hitchens? What kind of leftist are you?

I don't think I've ever quoted Chris Hitchens, although I did recommend Trials of Henry Kissinger, because it's a good book.


Hedges is not an atheist, and he does have criticism about it but his scorn is saved for the anti-theists whom are the most vocal and his critique of their arrogant style is rather relevant, especially in this day and age.

He isn't just criticizing their style. He's criticizing atheism, period, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.


You scoff at material conditions being the main source of social ills,


First of all, it has never been clear wehat you mean by this phrase. You've never explained it. I know what I mean when I use the word, albiet, in a different context, I have some idea what Martx meant by it, I'm baffled as to what you mean by it. insist it's mainly religion,

Second, no, I said virtually all the misery in the world can be attricuted to nationalism, economic exploitation, and religion. That's a paraphrase of Emma Goldman. I also said that these three aren't proportionally equal, in fact, religion is very probably the least of them, but some is, absolutely.



quote Harris and Hitchens as if they were these geniuses,

I still don't think I've ever quoted Christopher Hitchens. I have quoted Sam Harris, at least half the time because you, or Barry Lyndon, or someone else asks me to, either directly, or indirectly.

'Genius' is subjective and overly emotive. Sam Harris is very intelligent. So is Christopher Hitchens, for what it's worth. I like much of his philosophical take on religion, as well as the unique insight he brings to it, as a Neuroscientist.


downplay Marx as if he has no relevance today,

I'm not a Marxist, so I don't see much need to talk about him.


and post sometimes like a commentator on the Huffington Post website (citing Rasmussen Polls. etc.)

This is completely without substance. Especially because I'm almost certain Spectre was referring to the same poll, or something similar.


You define leftism as if it was this set of vague idealist beliefs.

Leftism is the state of being a Leftist. (Referring to the "Right/Left political spectrum that is used in common parlance originating in revolutionary France.) The political Left is defined by a number of philosophical views and ideological tendencies.


Socialists are communicating their message.

Clearly, it's insufficient.


It's not like we need a good publicist or something. We're effectively marginalized from the public eye for a reason.

Stop people on the street, shout it from the rooftops, twitter, something. Obviously, what's being done right now isn't working. Of course these ideas are marginalized. That's not new. You overcome it, or you don't.

[~Spectre]

No, I wasn’t. This also isn't the first time I've said it. There's nothing else I can do to convince you, but this is not so. I do not deny that I’m an admirer of his and I’m definitely influenced by his work, I’ll also gladly point out when I’m quoting, paraphrasing, or otherwise referencing him, when I am, in fact, doing so. There’s no reason it should be a secret.

Uhhuh.










Yes, I said that.



So support it. You're trying to argue that a "movement" organized and funded by republicans, composed of people that are economically better off than the majority of the U.S. population, is representative of working class rage co-opt'd.

You've yet to offer a shred of evidence for this.



That last part is at least possible, of course. How you're defining 'socialist sympathizers' is sort of crucial.

As opposed to how you define "tea party sympathizers" when you attempt to hand wave away the evidence that they aren't economically representative of working class rage?

The Rasmussen poll (which you butcher as badly you butcher Chomsky), didn't say 47% favor socialism (a lie necessary to use your next figure of %70). It stated that 20% favor Socialism over capitalism (completely consistent with you %70 free market counter evidence).

Tea party national support is at %12. You're argument has fallen apart.

To reiterate:
http://www.juancole.com/graphics/teaparty.jpg








I see this as a lot of speculation on his internal state. I don’t see why he couldn’t just explain it, then.


You're the only one who has speculated about his internal state. I'm just saying that there is nothing wrong with writing the article in the manner which he did. Criticizing his articles because they attack popular presuppositions, doesn't make much sense.





Again, he is against atheism, so, by default, he criticizes everyone who is an atheist, he just spends more time on the more visible ones. He also sometimes horribly distorts their views, like the Harris quote.


Harris horribly distorts things like reality. That said, I've heard him make distinctions between atheists, and between the lunatic fringe of atheists that you seem to be fond of. Coincidentally, I believe that is Chomsky's view as well. Which of your tutors are going to disown?




I’d argue with that if I thought you were even remotely interested in doing so. Suffice to say that is a dubious assertion, at best.


I'm one of the few people that bothers to seriously engage you for more than 1-2 posts in a row. Throw your best shot.

[Salyut]

“Do not fear Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin. Do not fear the tea party movement, the birthers, the legions of conspiracy theorists or the militias. …Investing emotional and intellectual energy in electoral politics is a waste of time. …“Better Barack Obama than Sarah Palin,” we will be told. Better the sane technocrats like Larry Summers than half-wits like John Bolton. But this time we must resist.”

It might help if I add some more context.

Hedges essentially believes that the end game is in play. The end of America, rise of fascism, Balkanization, etc. He did a piece for Adbusters that essentially told leftists to get into surrivalism; he has basically come to the conclusion that nothing is going to stop what is coming.

If you felt the same way would you still advocate participation in government? :p

[~Spectre]

Second, no, I said virtually all the misery in the world can be attricuted to nationalism, economic exploitation, and religion. That's a paraphrase of Emma Goldman. I also said that these three aren't proportionally equal, in fact, religion is very probably the least of them, but some is, absolutely.


Let's play a thought experiment. Which came first, nationalism, religion, or modes of economic production?

Got your answer? OK good. We will call your choice "X".

Now ask yourself if any significant developments to the other two (Y and Z) occurred without first significant changes to X which then produced what followed.

As X changes, Y and Z seem to drastically change, and people with similar setups of X, tend to have similar takes on Y and Z.

Bonus question: Has there ever been a case where Y and Z existed, but not X. Can you name cases where X existed without either Y or Z?


Which do you select as X?

[NGNM85]

What is wrong with this, NGN? Hedges is right.

No, he’s quite wrong. I’m not denying, and I never have, that we essentially have two wings of the business party, but they are not the same. The serve different elite constituencies, with different outcomes. That was a paraphrase of Chomsky, for a certain somebody.

This is me; You don’t have to take my word for it, for example, the recent Princeton study;
“Census Bureau data reveal large, consistent differences in patterns of real pre-tax income growth under Democratic and Republican presidents in the post-war U.S. Democratic presidents have produced slightly more income growth for poor families than for rich families, resulting in a modest decrease in overall inequality. Republican presidents have produced a great deal more income growth for rich families than for poor families, resulting in a substantial increase in inequality. On average, families at the 95th percentile of the income distribution have experienced identical income growth under Democratic and Republican presidents, while those at the 20th percentile have experienced more than four times as much income growth under Democrats as they have under Republicans. These differences are attributable to partisan differences in unemployment (which has been 30 percent lower under Democratic presidents, on average) and GDP growth (which has been 30 percent higher under Democratic presidents, on average); both unemployment and GDP growth have much stronger effects on income growth at the bottom of the income distribution than at the top. Similar partisan differences appear in the distribution of post-tax income growth of households since 1980, despite the fact that the corresponding pre-tax income growth data for that period show little evidence of partisan differences.”

I read another recent study that found a 2.2% gap in income among the working class under Democrat and Republican administration, that may sound small, but that’s a lot less bankruptcies, a lot less foreclosures, etc. Second, there has been an alarming transformation recently in the Republican party. It’s been changing substantially since Reagan, and politics in general, have moved to the right, but the Republican party has flung itself wildly out to the right. Mainstream Republicans are saying shit nobody could have gotten away with years ago. These people make the Reagan administration look tame by comparison. Extreme reactionaries have taken over. Disturbingly, there is convincing data that they may be poised to retake congress this year. Possibly, the white house, in two, although, that’s less likely. For all who recall the worst of the Bush years, and the Republican dominated congress, I shouldn’t have to go any further.

To simply drop out is to accomplish absolutely nothing. It won’t go away if we pretend it isn’t there. Moreover, one can only take that position if you actually don’t care about the working class.


NGN, even if you do not agree with Hedges on religion, that is besides the point.

It’s more than just a disagreement.


His social criticisms are not only spot on

Some of them are, some of them aren’t.


but really refreshing for someone in the mainstream.

It depends on how you define ‘mainstream.’


He is more of an ally to the working class than Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins combined.

See, this is sort of a simplistic, binary perspective. The world is more complex than that.

It also depends what yardstick you use. They are both scientists, Dawkins, especially, is a world renowned biologist, Harris is involved in Neuroscience, studying how the brain works. I think science is an inherently noble endeavor. I believe the pursuit of knowledge is an unparalleled good.

I think as philosophers they both contribute to the philosophical and intellectual landscape, to our discourse. I think the exchange and debate of ideas is a vital enterprise. Dawkins was a college professor, and both travel and conduct lectures, public forums etc.

Both have also been involved in broader projects. Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris have also tried to expand their reach by creating organizations, the Richard Dawkins Foundation, and Project Reason, both are pledged to promoting knowledge and reason, worldwide. I also believe the Richard Dawkins Foundation donated something like 500,000$ to relief in Haiti, or something.

I think these are valid contributions to society. I think artists are good for society. I think we need painters, and musicians, and astronomers, and physicists just as we need construction workers, and crane drivers. They are all expressions of basic human needs.


How can you not see this? Or are you really stuck on this notion that religion is the key obstacle to progress that must be stopped?

It isn’t the ‘key’ obstacle to progress, but it’s definitely an obstacle to progress. It very likely must be done away with, as well. Even if it’s possible for the human race to continue advancing technologically and socially with at least some significant population who are devoutly religious, there is absolutely no question we’d be better off without it.

[NGNM85]

Uhhuh.

There is nothing else I can do. Again, I have no problem pointing out when I am referencing or paraphrasing Chomsky, I’m not ashamed of it, nor should I be.


So support it. You're trying to argue that a "movement" organized and funded by republicans, composed of people that are economically better off than the majority of the U.S. population, is representative of working class rage co-opt'd.

[QUOTE=~Spectre;1866582]You've yet to offer a shred of evidence for this.



Better off, but not dramatically better off. Less than a quarter of subjects polled actually had a college degree of any kind. Which is like saying three-quarters of them didn’t. This is also probably the same 20% who make over 100k, annually.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/15/tea-party-supporters-richer-educated-poll-finds/

Then there’s the congressional approval ratings, which are pretty low, among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. It should at least be mentioned that there are a lot of legitimate reasons for people to be angry, especially the working class. Unemployment has increased substantially recently, a lot of people have lost their homes, etc. It’s been a rough ride, and the recovery is slow.

While there is dissatisfaction on all sides, the working class seems to be veering right, for the most part, at least, the ones that vote. (The fact that so many do not vote is another sign of popular disenfranchisement.) Republicans got more than expected turnout at the polls. It’s also worth noting the Republicans are also outspending Democrats significantly. A lot of Democrats are expecting serious competition, and there’s a very good chance the Republicans are going to retake congress.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/15/poll-republicans-pulling-further-ahead-of-dems_n_718861.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/14/midterm-election-2010-gop_1_n_715972.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/15/rock-the-vote-poll-young-yepublicans-excited_n_717935.html


As opposed to how you define "tea party sympathizers" when you attempt to hand wave away the evidence that they aren't economically representative of working class rage?

Again, they really aren’t that much wealthier, only a quarter made over 100k. They may be put together by the BMW-driving, country-club set, but that isn’t the rank and file. Again, 40% of ‘likely voters’ identify as ‘Tea Party Supporters.’

Also, the Tea Party’s whole shtick is ‘antiestablishment’ rage.

I define Tea Party Sympathizers as anyone who responds to their rhetoric, or sees something attractive about them.

I don’t know what you mean by ‘Socialist Sympathizers’. Does that mean people who support nationalized healthcare?


The Rasmussen poll (which you butcher as badly you butcher Chomsky),

Evidence, please. You said I do it constantly, it should be exceptionally easy.



didn't say 47% favor socialism (a lie necessary to use your next figure of %70). It stated that 20% favor Socialism over capitalism (completely consistent with you %70 free market counter evidence).

I was looking at this poll, which was from last year, I didn’t check the date (Still, fairly recent.) in which 53% said Capitalism was better than Socialism, I got it from another site which referenced it. Apparently, of those that did not say Capitalism was better than Socialism, 20% said Socialism is better, 27% were undecided.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2009/just_53_say_capitalism_better_than_socialism

You’re referencing this year’s version which shows 60% say Capitalism is better, a slide to the right.

I also think a problem is many of the respondents probably don’t understand the essential concepts.



Tea party national support is at %12. You're argument has fallen apart.

40% of ‘Likely voters’ described themselves as Tea Party Supporters. Also, in addition, I think there’s a lot of working and middle class people who don’t affiliate with the group, but are attracted to it, and, thus, to the GOP.


To reiterate:



Where did this come from? Where are the numbers? What agency did the polling?



You're the only one who has speculated about his internal state. I'm just saying that there is nothing wrong with writing the article in the manner which he did. Criticizing his articles because they attack popular presuppositions, doesn't make much sense.

I criticized this article, and for a number of reasons.


Harris horribly distorts things like reality.

Well, since you put it that way….


That said, I've heard him make distinctions between atheists, and between the lunatic fringe of atheists that you seem to be fond of.

Yeah, the most visible and outspoken are the best targets, but that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

Atheism, fundamentally, is static. Atheism is really just the refusal to accept extreme conclusions about the afterlife and the origin of the universe, etc., without insufficient evidence.


Coincidentally, I believe that is Chomsky's view as well.

I’ve never read anything by Chomsky referring to Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Denett, etc. However, it doesn’t matter much. You seem to think that there has to be this cognitive dissonance because I happen to like philosophers who don’t agree on every issue, first, I’d be amazed to find too many philosophers that do agree on every single issue. Also, as I’ve said many times, nobody bats 1000. It isn’t an either/or proposition.


Which of your tutors are going to disown?

‘Tutors’? What the fuck are you babbling about?


I'm one of the few people that bothers to seriously engage you for more than 1-2 posts in a row. Throw your best shot.

No, you're not. On both counts. Most importantly, you aren't remotely interested in a serious discussion. You are interested in petty sniping and snide remarks. It’s overwhelmingly clear the last thing you are interested in is to actually discuss the issues.

[NGNM85]

It might help if I add some more context.

Hedges essentially believes that the end game is in play. The end of America, rise of fascism, Balkanization, etc. He did a piece for Adbusters that essentially told leftists to get into surrivalism; he has basically come to the conclusion that nothing is going to stop what is coming.

If you felt the same way would you still advocate participation in government? :p

Probably not. Nor would I if I believed the Rapture was immenant. The problem is that these are bogus starting points.

[The Red Next Door]

You need to grow up.

Barack Obama is call, he want you to be in his administration.

[RadioRaheem84]

To simply drop out is to accomplish absolutely nothing. It won’t go away if we pretend it isn’t there. Moreover, one can only take that position if you actually don’t care about the working class.

It's not as thought we're dropping out and doing nothing NGN. Leftists are trying to take political power away from the two business parties by advocating for a third force. I am very political active, just not for any of the two parties.

I find it very defeatist to say that there is no hope except for in the lesser of two evils argument.

To think like you do is to abandon the notion that the economy has the final say. Policies are conducted to benefit capital accumulation. It's not like when a Democrat is in office after a Republican, income inequality suddenly halts for a few then spikes back up when a Republican gets in afterwards. The study is obviously flawed and inconsistent with hard pressed economics facts from a leftist perspective.

Seriously, how do you maintain any sort of relevancy on here when citing so much reformist and liberal crap to challenge leftist arguments and then turn it around and say that you're making a leftist argument?



Some of them are, some of them aren’t.


Hedges tends to understand the social hegemony of the liberal establishment and how they've moved further to the right in the past decades to resemble their right wing counterparts. He shreds the PR bullshit they've been pulling for years and offers a realistic look at our society that I find refreshing for someone in the mainstream. And by mainstream, I mean someone that isn't effectively marginalized like most of the leftist community. He can appear occasionally on national TV, radio and print journalism. Unlike say Michael Parenti.



See, this is sort of a simplistic, binary perspective. The world is more complex than that.

It also depends what yardstick you use. They are both scientists, Dawkins, especially, is a world renowned biologist, Harris is involved in Neuroscience, studying how the brain works. I think science is an inherently noble endeavor. I believe the pursuit of knowledge is an unparalleled good.

I think as philosophers they both contribute to the philosophical and intellectual landscape, to our discourse. I think the exchange and debate of ideas is a vital enterprise. Dawkins was a college professor, and both travel and conduct lectures, public forums etc.

Both have also been involved in broader projects. Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris have also tried to expand their reach by creating organizations, the Richard Dawkins Foundation, and Project Reason, both are pledged to promoting knowledge and reason, worldwide. I also believe the Richard Dawkins Foundation donated something like 500,000$ to relief in Haiti, or something.

I think these are valid contributions to society. I think artists are good for society. I think we need painters, and musicians, and astronomers, and physicists just as we need construction workers, and crane drivers. They are all expressions of basic human needs.

The world is not as complex as much as you're seriously confused. Hitchens promotes war, Harris is a sophomoric philosopher and Dawkins is a good scientist with some charitable organizations which really help but he has offered nothing in terms of actual class conscious to the working class.

All three would probably find Communists repulsive and the notion of anti-establishment politics crass and vulgar. I know Christopher Hitchens at least will as he chides any populist sentiment what so ever now.

The point is that I understand that you're trying to say that the world is more complex and everyone plays some sort of part in helping the working class. But I fail to see how you interpret charitable work by a liberal scientist as something that I meant when I said, helping the working class?

NGN, you desperately need a class analysis of things and a material perspective. You end up all over the place and making less sense then when you started.

I have to ask, do you think of yourself as this ultimate independent thinker, thinking outside the box by literally citing reformist and liberal stuff and then calling it a leftist perspective? Scoffing at Marx? Denying the importance of a material and class based perspective? I am really asking to understand just where you're coming from, I am not trying to be rude. I just want to know why you insist on doing so.

It has to be because you really look at Leftism to just be a series of vague idealistic platitudes that encompass all sorts of political ideologies including liberalism. You take the mainstream definition of what constitutes as "left" and run with it thinking that citing studies done by reformist groups is somehow tantamount to bringing down arguments by other leftists. All of this clearly stems from a total rejection of a materialist and class perspective. Which is why one like you could consider Harris and Hitchens stuff a continuation of leftist-Anarchist principles and shrug off a pretty damn socially conscious person like Hedges, without batting an eye.

[~Spectre]

There is nothing else I can do. Again, I have no problem pointing out when I am referencing or paraphrasing Chomsky, I’m not ashamed of it, nor should I be.

It's all you ever really do. While this may be satisfying for you to do in casual conversation, it turns all your threads into "dispel misconstrued Noam Chomsky excerpts".






Better off, but not dramatically better off. Less than a quarter of subjects polled actually had a college degree of any kind. Which is like saying three-quarters of them didn’t. This is also probably the same 20% who make over 100k, annually.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/15/tea-party-supporters-richer-educated-poll-finds/
OK so let's address this poll directly. 18% support for the tea party. Which is still less than the original Rasmussen poll cited. Of these, most of them were:

"The 18 percent of people who counted themselves among the Tea Party crowd are also mostly white, male and older than 45 years old."

This isn't a breakdown supportive of working class rage. If it were, one could presume more diversity than simply a movement of old white men, no?



Then there’s the congressional approval ratings, which are pretty low, among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. It should at least be mentioned that there are a lot of legitimate reasons for people to be angry, especially the working class. Unemployment has increased substantially recently, a lot of people have lost their homes, etc. It’s been a rough ride, and the recovery is slow.
If you want to talk congress. We can analyze two trends:

1) Sarah Palin's "tea party" candidates. For congressional seats, they went something like 0 for 5 in significant races or something like that. And that's in primary races. Meaning against other republicans.

2) In the recent elections, you had two notable elections where the "tea party" sort of went off the chain and beat more "establishment" republicans. New York, and Delaware. Both are expected to now lose by landslides. That doesn't seem consistent with the tea party being an expression of the working class.





While there is dissatisfaction on all sides, the working class seems to be veering right, for the most part, at least, the ones that vote. (The fact that so many do not vote is another sign of popular disenfranchisement.) Republicans got more than expected turnout at the polls. It’s also worth noting the Republicans are also outspending Democrats significantly. A lot of Democrats are expecting serious competition, and there’s a very good chance the Republicans are going to retake congress.Congratulations. You've discovered the grand political truth that America switches parties a lot when the economy tanks.

Conversely, since you're on record saying that democrats are left wing. Didn't Americans in your view "veer left" for the last 4 years, first by democrats controlling congress, and then by electing a democrat President?

Was that an expression of working class rage co-opted or something like that?

Or does this only count when discussing movements founded by the other corporate party?






I don’t know what you mean by ‘Socialist Sympathizers’. Does that mean people who support nationalized healthcare? People who said socialism is > Capitalism.



Evidence, please. You said I do it constantly, it should be exceptionally easy.You outright lied about the initial poll results, only so you could dismiss it with another (non-contradicting) poll result. QED




I was looking at this poll, which was from last year, I didn’t check the date (Still, fairly recent.) in which 53% said Capitalism was better than Socialism, I got it from another site which referenced it. Apparently, of those that did not say Capitalism was better than Socialism, 20% said Socialism is better, 27% were undecided.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2009/just_53_say_capitalism_better_than_socialismI was referencing that one as well. You tried to dismiss the figure by arguing that 70% favored the free market, because you misread it as "47% support socialism".





I also think a problem is many of the respondents probably don’t understand the essential concepts.
As opposed to the tea party people? Who, btw, vote and self identify as republicans. Making your attempt to separate them out a bit futile.







40% of ‘Likely voters’ described themselves as Tea Party Supporters. Also, in addition, I think there’s a lot of working and middle class people who don’t affiliate with the group, but are attracted to it, and, thus, to the GOP. All that indicates is that they are republicans. Changing a label on republican voters doesn't mean that they've co-opted anything to form the tea party movement. Which is what is in question.

A much stronger argument is that Americans are more reactionary than their counterparts elsewhere, because of such and such factors.

Focusing on the tea party itself though? Sorry, no sale. It's a republican apparatus. Hedges is on solid ground with them.






Where did this come from? Where are the numbers? What agency did the polling? That's just a graphic of the rasmussen poll, combined with a CNN poll for the "tea party".








Yeah, the most visible and outspoken are the best targets, but that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

Atheism, fundamentally, is static. Atheism is really just the refusal to accept extreme conclusions about the afterlife and the origin of the universe, etc., without insufficient evidence.

There is a difference between someone who considers themselves an Atheist, and someone who in their Anti-Theism, butchers basic history and promotes the "culture clash" type of nonsense.




I’ve never read anything by Chomsky referring to Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Denett, etc. However, it doesn’t matter much. You seem to think that there has to be this cognitive dissonance because I happen to like philosophers who don’t agree on every issue, first, I’d be amazed to find too many philosophers that do agree on every single issue. Also, as I’ve said many times, nobody bats 1000. It isn’t an either/or proposition.
You mention it as if it were a damning condemnation of Hedges. If that's true, it should be equally as damning to others.






No, you're not. On both counts. Most importantly, you aren't remotely interested in a serious discussion. You are interested in petty sniping and snide remarks. It’s overwhelmingly clear the last thing you are interested in is to actually discuss the issues.I'll gladly discuss with you. If you feel that you get "snide remarks", it's probably because you seem more interested in stubborn sophistry than in actual critical thinking.

The way you come off, you watch videos of Chomsky and Harris, and just use the first's talking points (usually misunderstood) for politics, and the second one's for religion. You literally regurgitate them.

Maybe you have fun with that in real life, but it's no substitute for taking a second to think about what it is that you're saying.

No answer for my other post?

[Crux]

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20081229_why_i_am_a_socialist/
I'll just note that calling the governments of spain and norway "socialist" is misinformed, and most likely naivety on Hedges part. Sure the ruling party of Spain have "socialist" in their name, as does one of the minor parties in the Norwegian government (made up of the socialdemocratic worker's party, Socialist Left and the Centre Party). The austerity measures in Spain are no more socialist than the austerity measures in any other country. By the same token the hated government of greece would also be called socialist (as it is ruled by the panhellenic socialist party).

[x359594]

... Hitchens promotes war, Harris is a sophomoric philosopher and Dawkins is a good scientist with some charitable organizations which really help but he has offered nothing in terms of actual class conscious to the working class....All three would probably find Communists repulsive and the notion of anti-establishment politics crass and vulgar...

Added to which is that Hitchens and Harris are neoconservative ideologues, and Harris is especially repugnant in his advocacy of and justification for torture to extract information from "terrorists."

That Harris is a neuroscientist adds nothing to his arguments; Willy Braun was a rocket scientist who put himself in the service of the Third Reich. There is no correlation between between scientists and radical politics. For a study of the mindset that allows scientists to put themselves in the service of oppression see The Nazi Doctors by Robert J. Lifton.

[NGNM85]

Added to which is that Hitchens and Harris are neoconservative ideologues,

Neither of these men are 'neoconservatives', (Which is, incidentally, a highly dubious classification.) especially Harris.



and Harris is especially repugnant in his advocacy of and justification for torture to extract information from "terrorists."

Not this, again... That would certainly be repellent if that was an accurate characterization of what he said. This has been done to death.
Here's his "Response to Controversy", he clarifies his position on torture about halfway down, hopefully we can avoid going through this, again.
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2/


That Harris is a neuroscientist adds nothing to his arguments;

It's interesting because now we can go beyond observing behavior and actually see, mechanically, what the brain is doing. We can see mechanically how religious belief (Among other things.) manifests itself in the brain. What is the neurological basis for religious fanaticism, what's actually going on, inside. It's new, at the very least, because until recently we didn't have the technology or the understanding of the brain required to conduct this kind of research. Just as Dawkins arguments are informed by modern evolutionary biology, physics, and cosmology, which make the claims of religion increasingly untenable. This data was not availible to Marx or Bakunin, and it makes sense that our perspective should be informed by it.


Willy Braun was a rocket scientist who put himself in the service of the Third Reich.

Yes, Werner von Braun was a member of the SS, until he surrendered and the US government decided the application of his technical knowledge was more important than his participation in a genocidal regime. The US government protected a lot of former Nazi officials, and staffers, including Klaus Barbie, 'the butcher of Lyons.' The Vatican also helped a number of Nazis escape persecution.


There is no correlation between between scientists and radical politics. For a study of the mindset that allows scientists to put themselves in the service of oppression see The Nazi Doctors by Robert J. Lifton.

First, I think it bears mentioning, the Third Reich is often trotted out by religious people as an example of the moral bankruptcy of atheism, and science. However, the crimes of Nazi Germany were not comitted because of Atheism. The ideas and practices of the Nazi party with regards to eugenics, etc., was also completely un-scientific.

You're absolutely right, however, that there are scientists, well-educated people, who have believed some extremely crazy things. For example, Francis Collins, who was the leader of the Human Genome Project, and a world-renowned geneticist, a leader in the field. He's also a devout Christian. His ideas about the literal truth of Bible passages clearly don't stand up to even a casual analysis. Interestingly, he was not always religious, he was supposedly an Atheist until he was around thirty. To cut a long story short, his religious conversion came after he witnessed what he believed was a 'sign' from god. What was this message from beyond that turned a former skeptic into a devout Christian? It wasn't a burning bush, the opposite, in fact, while walking through the woods in winter he came upon a waterfall that had frozen into three streams, to him, symbolizing the holy trinity. That was it. So, clearly, in this respect, despite his finely-honed powers of deduction, he's being profoundly unscientific. All this proves is the amazing capacity of the human brain for cognitive dissonance. Which, incidentally, we can begin to understand through neuroscience.

I think there is a connection, though, between 'radical' politics and science, or, there should be. I mean, science is just applied rationality. Whatever our outlook, it should be informed by facts and reason, we should be continually questioning our presuppositions, enforce rigorous scientific discipline. I think science, good science, real science, when applied to the relevent issues, actually supports Left-Wing positions. Also, I think science has an inherent Libertarian (As in Anarchist.) character. The first principle of science is to question everything, which is the cardinal sin of autocrats and dogmatists. I think we'd be infinitely better off, in general, with scientists, rather than our current politicians, making decisions. Science should be a friend to any serious Leftist.

[RadioRaheem84]

Neither of these men are 'neoconservatives', (Which is, incidentally, a highly dubious classification.) especially Harris.

What do you mean by highly dubious? It is a real political ideology. Hitchens has flirted with it and dared to go full neo-con if it weren't for certain disagreements.

Seriously, do your homework.

[NGNM85]

What do you mean by highly dubious? It is a real political ideology. Hitchens has flirted with it and dared to go full neo-con if it weren't for certain disagreements.

Seriously, do your homework.

It's dubious because it isn't new ('neo') and it isn't actually 'conservative.'

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Indeed. "Neocon"-men (think "con man") could care less about deficit reduction or the welfare state, so long as there's aggressive foreign policy and lots of $$$ plowed into the military. The only thing that makes "neoconservatism" what it is is the ability to adopt "fiscally conservative" rhetoric when needed.